IN many towns and cities, the newspaper is an endangered species. At least 300 daily papers have stopped publishing over the past 30 years. Those newspapers that have survived are struggling financially. Newspaper circulation has declined steadily for more than 10 years. Average daily circulation is down 2.6 percent in the last six months alone.

Newspapers have also been hurt by significant cuts in advertising revenue, which accounts for at least 75 percent of their revenue. Their share of the advertising market has fallen every year for the past decade, while online advertising has increased greatly.

At the heart of all of these facts and figures is the undeniable reality that the media marketplace has changed considerably over the last three decades. In 1975, cable television served fewer than 15 percent of television households. Satellite TV did not exist. Today, by contrast, fewer than 15 percent of homes do not subscribe to cable or satellite television. And the Internet as we know it today did not even exist in 1975. Now, nearly one-third of all Americans regularly receive news through the Internet.

If we dont act to improve the health of the newspaper industry, we will see newspapers wither and die. Without newspapers, we would be less informed about our communities and have fewer outlets for the expression of independent thinking and a diversity of viewpoints. The challenge is to restore the viability of newspapers while preserving the core values of a diversity of voices and a commitment to localism in the media marketplace.

Eighteen months ago, the Federal Communications Commission began a review, ordered by Congress and the courts, of its media ownership rules. After six public hearings, 10 economic studies and hundreds of thousands of comments, the commission should move forward.

We??? Who is we? the gubermint? No, no, No! The opening of the article describes all of the new media that has come into play. Many of those outlets have newspaper roots. Those are the entities that have transformed along with the marketplace. For those that we are supposed to save, aren't they the buggy whip manufacturers? Google up the name of any of the small towns that lost a newspaper and you will likely find a working community Web site. Choose other towns that still have a local paper and chances are the community site is tied into the paper's operation. Those are the media outlets that will survive.

The last thing we need is the government to shore up the buggy whip manufacturers.

An odd fact is the socialist mindset seems good at taking over various public media;and the,of course, pushing the socialist viewpoint to the eventual disgust of ex-subcribers.

Our local papers were acquired by an out of town group which prompty raised the price for a small weekly from 35cents to 75 cents while cutting the number of pages.The editorial bent now is very biased in favor of whatever government,"preservationists",enviromentalists,and sports people want.In that order.

Posturing themselves in five years for some odd government hand-out...will be a fascinating event to occur. I can see the deal slide via congress...if you show a 30,000 subscription level...the government will compensate you with another 10,000 “free citizens” on your books and pay you for that group...thus making up 25 percent of your profit...without you putting up any cost.

Once we figure this out and understand this...suddenly we will all open up newspapers across the country...four pages at the most...and sell 1,000 subscriptions...and getting another 250 “free citizens” on our books for profit.

After a while...the other print-media...like Time and Newsweek will play the game...then the local stations in Oakland, Chicago, and New York. Everyone in the media will be on media-welfare...by 2050. Amusingly enough...Matt Drudge Jr...will be running a site that makes 1000 percent profit a year...without any government contributions. And Rush Limbaugh Jr...will be coast to coast...with not a single dime of government sponsor money helping him. 60 Minutes will do a piece...wondering how Rush and Matt Jr make a profit without government assistance.

the Internet as we know it today did not even exist in 1975. Now, nearly one-third of all Americans regularly receive news through the Internet.

If we dont act to improve the health of the newspaper industry, we will see newspapers wither and die. Without newspapers, we would be less informed about our communities and have fewer outlets for the expression of independent thinking and a diversity of viewpoints.

Without newspapers, we will see the remaining two thirds of Americans reading locally based web sites for their news. And without The New York Times and the rest of the octopus known as The Associated Press, we will get our national and international news the same way - from multiple sources, acting as our own gatekeeper as to what we will pay attention to and what we will ignore.

13
posted on 11/13/2007 8:15:58 AM PST
by conservatism_IS_compassion
(The idea around which liberalism coheres is that NOTHING actually matters except PR.)

The issue is actually whether newspaper owners should be permitted to also own broadcast media in the same market. It is curious that the argument takes the form of one industry essentially subsidizing another; surely an organization whose circulation is in decline will find similar problems in a broadcast industry as a result of similar policies.

That's the denial - the editorial board of the NY Times in particular steadfastly refuses to accept that its market results are partially a result of policy. All of the old complaints are trotted out (as our author does here) - other media are more successful (why?), more relevant (why?), more capable of delivering an advertiser's message (why?), etc, etc. A public rejection based on perceived ideological bias and persistent manipulation does not appear in this equation. Doesn't exist. Can't happen.

Well, it does and it is - if it killed one medium it will kill another. And is, as the current public rejection of anti-Iraq War movies indicates.

That said, the genesis of this particular issue is FCC regulation of a market for purposes of preventing a smothering, oppressive media monopoly by precisely the same sort of ideologues as currently run the Times. A noble purpose, but a market manipulation. If my case is sound the Times will fail in broadcast media for precisely the same reason it's hurting in print. The market works slowly, but it does work. Part of the reason for the left's hate campaign against Fox is that CNN (among others) no longer has a free field and sole possession of the market. It must compete. That hurt.

I confess that in my public role, I feel that the press is not on my side.

It shouldn't be on anyone's "side," and that's the issue here. "To comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable" is smug, arrogant, self-serving garbage, never true from the day it was first spouted. But in my opinion the market will prove a greater corrective than the government can. All IMHO, of course.

If we dont act to improvesubsidize the healthincome of the newspaper industry with taxpayer money, we will see newspapers wither and dieall be out of a job. Without newspapers, wethe gullible idiots we call readers would becomelessmore informed about our communitiesbecause they will be forced to get their news from the internet and have fewerthousands of outlets for the expression of independent thinking and a diversity of viewpoints. The challengescam is to restore the viabilitymonopoly of newspapers with taxpayer money while preserving the core valuestravesty of a diversity of voiceselite media hegemonyandunder the cover of a feigned commitment to localism in the media marketplace.

Fixed it.

15
posted on 11/13/2007 10:25:34 AM PST
by Bob J
(For every 1000 hacking at the branches of evil, there is one striking at its root)

CHANGES to media-ownership rules proposed by Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin do nothing to promote a vigorous and free press. Martin’s plan does the opposite by encouraging media conglomerates to augment their substantial holdings through cross-ownership.

The proposal is a crafty piece of policy that tries to masquerade as a compromise. This is no compromise, but rather a path for media giants to own a newspaper, television station and radio station in the same market. Martin cleverly says that cross-ownership can happen only in the 20 largest media markets, and that the television station would have to fall out of the top four in the market to be included.

Any thought that these are only minor changes that do not have a damaging effect on diversity of media voices is blown away by a provision that allows the FCC to consider exceptions. It is probable that these exceptions would allow for FCC approval of cross-ownership in markets outside the top 20, and for dominant stations.

If the proposal were not bad enough, it does not address two issues at the heart of media consolidation: The changes do not touch the idea of localism  how well broadcasters serve their communities through news operations; Martin has also shockingly dropped any consideration about the lack of women- and minority-owned media outlets.

Martin is not only thumbing his nose at good policy, he is trashing the public, which has demonstrated at every FCC hearing during the past year that more media consolidation is not wanted or needed.

snip

19
posted on 11/14/2007 5:07:36 AM PST
by abb
(The Dinosaur Media: A One-Way Medium in a Two-Way World)

The 1975 FCC rule prohibiting companies from owning both a newspaper and broadcast station in the same local market began for the wrong reasons and may soon end for the wrong reasons. DonÂt believe any of the claptrap you may have heard about how such legislation protects the public by keeping the press Âindependent.Â It is nothing more than a stinky deal between Old Media and the government that has protected both of them at the expense of the people.

For Old Media companies, it provided protection against being acquired or facing tougher competition. For government, it provided protection against any citizenÂs voice growing to be more powerful than its own. The very passage of this free speech and free press-abridging rule broke the First AmendmentÂs promise that ÂCongress shall make no lawÂ doing exactly that. Consequently, the public has been artificially stuck for decades with newspapers that are at best mediocre, when they could have benefited from, for instance, successful papers entering from other markets and competing for their business Â something that would have happened in just about any other, less corrupt industry.

The FCC is now considering loosening this cross-ownership rule just a tad, not for the public good, but only as a favor to Old-Media- member-in-good-standing Los Angeles Times. This paper now faces the real possibility of extinction unless another Old Media company is allowed to buy them (presumably because only an Old Media company would be foolish enough to do such a thing). The FCC could at the same time consider the lifting of other similar regulations that hurt the public, such as those that limit ownership of radio stations, radio networks, TV stations, and TV networks. But then, that would be for the public good, not for the good of a member of Old Media. Guess that’s too much to expect these days in the land of the free and the home of the brave.

The NYT gave FCC Chair Kevin Martin the bully pulpit of its op-ed page today. He's used it to take an embarrassing pratfall.

Martin's problem isn't the position he's advocating: He'd like his commission to relax ownership rules that prohibit companies from owning both a newspaper and a tv or radio station in the same market. We have no problem with that. But Martin's tortured justification for the move -- that it will help save local newspapers -- just doesn't fly.

Martin insists that we act now to save local newspapers or we'll end up with "fewer outlets for the expression of independent thinking and a diversity of viewpoints." We like papers ourselves, and we'd like them to stick around. But if they do die, we're not going to have a news or opinion shortfall.

But more to the point, how does Martin suggest we save papers? Allow cross ownership, so they can save on news gathering costs.

If Martin was serious about his proposal, we'd suggest he actually watch a local tv operation in action, where he'd learn that they're already using the local papers to save on news gathering costs: Every morning the assignment editor reads the paper, learns what happened the night before, and plans the day accordingly. True, both outlets deliver news to people, but there's not a lot of redundancy between the staffs of a newspaper and a TV station. Newsroom joint ventures have mostly been a failure, and many have been abandoned since they came into vogue more than a decade ago. TV journalists don't report much and newspaper journalists are generally bad on TV. In terms of cost savings, they can pay for one less A.P. feed, but that's about it.

But Martin's not serious about his justification -- that's why he spends less than one paragraph explaining it. We don't know why, but the Republican FCC chair seems embarrassed to come out and say that cross-ownership has zero impact on what kind of news we see and hear. So we'll do it for him: We've consumed news in three cities where there have been exceptions to the cross-ownership rules (Milwaukee, Chicago, New York). And in every city, we've fared just fine. Surely the rest of country will do ok, too.

20
posted on 11/14/2007 6:18:18 AM PST
by Milhous
(Gn 22:17 your descendants shall take possession of the gates of their enemies)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.